Wednesday, 23 November 2011

So Creationists. A Universe From Nothing?

Hardly an hour goes by without some Christian or Muslim fundamentalist posting a message on Twitter to the effect that Atheism/Evolution is the belief that nothing went bang and magically created everything, or some such infantile parody of science.

Of course, a few minutes on Google, or reading a book on Big Bang cosmology would dispel that cherished myth and I have dealt with this several times in this blog, here and here and here, so I'm not going to rehearse the science yet again.

Instead, let's look at what Christians and Muslims believe.

Um... well, strangely enough, they believe the universe was magically created out of nothing.

How odd that they believe the very thing they wrongly ridicule Atheists for believing. How odd that the infantile parody they accuse Atheists of believing is the very thing they believe themselves.

Anyone would think Creationists no more know what they believe than they know what Atheists believe.

So, Christians and Muslims, instead of showing your ignorance by being wrong about Atheism, how about showing us your knowledge by answering the following simple question:

How did your god created everything out of nothing?

If it didn't create everything out of nothing, who or what created the stuff it used and out of what?

21 comments
:

Very good point. I have never thought about it this way, and wonder what others will say. As far as I know, this is pretty new so I'm assuming you thought this up yourself? I don't know. If you did, very nice job.

I'm just starting out as a blogger. If you have the time, please go to my site and tell me what I can do better. If not, I completely understand. Either way, thanks! :3

First let us get something perfectly clear....the operation of the universe does not depend on magic, it depends on known laws of observation which are predictable and measurable. These laws are not magic ....but neither are they unalterable...under the proper conditions these laws can be superseded by higher laws and those laws are not magic either. To make the claim that God uses magic is to ignore the laws he has put in place to keep the universe operating. If the laws which allow the universe to operate are not magic then any assumption about the origin of such laws and the universe itself cannot be said to have anything to do with magic. By whatever method the universe was created including the laws which brought it into existence, those laws are NOT in operation NOW...so any description of what these laws are or how they operate is exercising knowledge you do not possess....which includes calling it magic.

Firstly, I'm sorry you felt unwilling to reveal your identity. The problem is that now anyone can join in and pretend to be you.

Having said, that, congratulations on making a good start, albeit one consisting only of assertions with no evidential support, but perhaps you'd like now to build on that and explain the science behind your 'higher laws', so that we can see it's not indeed magic.

After all, your task was to explain HOW your god created a universe from nothing, not merely to assert that it did. Evidence-free assertion has already been done ad nauseum.

So you want to know my identity?...Well....maybe I believe that the validity of my arguments is more important than what people call me or what people know about me. But if you need to put a label on me you can call me a "The Theistic Protagonist"...I will include the same 7 letter sequence at the conclusion of all my posts which you can edit out before posting to validate my identity...or not, I leave that to you...it is really of no consequence to me. But...To answer the question you gave me as to how God creates...let me point out that there are 3 possibilities mentioned as to the origin of the universe 1) The universe(s) is eternal 2) The universe was created by someone eternal 3) The universe came from nothing. (Please don't throw the Krauss video into the argument...its bogus...and self contradictory)Please notice that ALL 3 possibilities are non-observable. Whatever stand one takes as to the nature of the origin of the universe, it is apparent that requiring any one possibility to prove itself above or beyond the other two is then a proclamation of bias towards a desired solution. One must be content with the limitations of human observation and testability. However of the 3 possibilities only the second is sufficient to explain ALL that exists. If you feel a great aversion to unsupported assertions then ask the next physicist you meet to actually give you a description of his test for the eternal or actually produce something from nothing. I'm content that my solution is a SUFFICIENT cause for ALL that exists which includes the universe AND the life in it.IKTHUZE

No. As I pointed out though, anyone can now join in this thread pretending to be you, if indeed you are the same person who posted the original comment.

When will you be dealing with the point of the blog and explaining HOW your god created everything from nothing, please?

As I explained earlier, mere assertions that it did so add nothing. They don't even create the impression that you COULD explain how if you wanted to but are just choosing not to, which I suspect is your intention.

In fact, they create quite the opposite impression and reinforce the idea that you know you believe something which is untenable but which you don't have the integrity to admit, maybe even to yourself.

I don't think my last comments were either obscure or obtuse RosaRubicondior, my response was NOT meant to "avoid" the answer to your question. My response was meant to show that by requiring ME to explain how God creates from "nothing" is requiring me to offer a burden of proof inconsistent with what YOU already willingly accept by either believing that 1) the universe is eternal or 2) the universe simply popped into existence by itself. Do you have any explanation or proof for these last two possibilities? If you do, you certainly did not offer any. I therefore feel completely justified that the reason for what I believe, needs no more explanation than what you offered for what you believe. Just what is your test that something has always existed or that it just suddenly came into existence without a cause? So you see these "mere assertions" that you claim that I am guilty of making are simply the very same type that YOU are using for your own position...this must be obvious to even the most casual observer...so much so that it really does make we wonder how you can say that I don't have the integrity to admit what you yourself can't prove.IKTHUZE

>I don't think my last comments were either obscure or obtuse RosaRubicondior, my response was NOT meant to "avoid" the answer to your question.<

And yet nowhere in it was there any attempt to explain HOW your god made everything out of nothing....

Of course, and not wishing to give you the opportunity to divert the thread away from your difficulty, I appreciate you will need to prove your god's existence before you can offer it up as an integral part of any explanation of HOW it did anything, but that's a problem for you, not for me.

I note your desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof onto me, by the way. This is normally taken as a sure sign that people know they are trying to push an untenable notion and so need to rely on dishonest tactics.

Perhaps we should approach this from a slightly different direction. Originally I gave you 3 options to pick from...

1) The universe is eternal or2) The universe was created by someone eternal or 3) The universe came from nothing

Let us for the moment drop # 2 and say it does not exist....this should make every Atheist happy as now they win by default...no need to consider or prove a God or explain his method of creation. That leaves both #1 and #3.

1) The universe(s) is eternal or3) The universe came from nothing

Now which of these two is the correct one and what proof do you offer for it being true to the EXCLUSION of the other? Whatever proof you claim there exists for your particular choice, I will simply claim that it is only an assertion on your part on the basis of you not having a definitive test for determining the property of eternal existence as in case #1... OR that

You are committing the FALLACY of COMPOSITION (when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole or even of every proper part of the whole.) as in the case of #3 if you claim something can come from nothing...which I maintain is not possible but claim is only an "assertion" since you have supplied NO EVIDENCE for it being true....just as YOU have done with me when I chose #2.

Any attempt NOT to make a choice between #1 or #3 or offer proof of your choice being factually true makes you guilty of the same crime you have accused me of committing. This then is YOUR dilemma... You have rejected #2 (for "assertion" reasons) and accepted #1 or #3 which suffer from the same defect. This is not a logically tenable position and demonstrates a priori bias towards a specific world view while at the same time denying that same choice for the same reasons to someone else...

There is NO attempt on my part to "shift the burden of proof" here. My attempt is to BALANCE the burden of proof by requiring you to meet the same standard of proof you REQUIRE from others...unless one wants to qualify for the label of hypocrite one is obligated to live by the same standard demanded as proof from others.

You, it appears are accusing me of "pushing an untenable position" by choosing #2 but you are doing the same for your choice of either #1 or #3.

Where is the use of "dishonest tactics"?...There is NO dishonesty in a universal standard requirement of proof! EVERYONE must play by the same rules including YOU RosaRubicondior.

I can no more "prove" an eternal creator that creates something from nothing than you can "prove" that the universe is eternal and requires no creator or that the universe popped into existence from nothing...that is my point and always has been!....and who is being condescending? I never insulted you or your position...I explained as clearly as possible with no disrespect why your position only demonstrates bias because it has no more basis for support than any other explanations for the origin of the universe....when I asked you for what evidence you had for your choice from the 3 alternatives that I gave...you offered none!...but STILL criticized my choice!.....and that is where it ends. You are certainly are entitled to that choice but you can't criticize someone for making a different choice based on the SAME logic with the SAME evidence you provided for making your choice.

It remains for others who are reading this to determine what choice THEY will make...but judging from your example they certainly can't say you have demonstrated anything positive on which to make the same decision for any of the same reasons that you made yours.

I made my choice as the result of other considerations that go beyond just the obvious existence of a universe. Those reasons are not included here but remain nevertheless sound and testable...something of which cannot be said for yours.IKTHUZE

It must be becoming perfectly clear to anyone reading these comments that you cannot answer the simple question - HOW did your god create everything out of nothing? - and that you lack the honesty and integrity to say so.

I doubt anyone is fooled by another heap of verbiage clearly designed to hide your difficulties and yet another attempt to get away with yet another evidence-free assertion.

Are we done yet or would you like to make a spectacle of yourself for a few more days?

In case you are new to these sorts of debates, the traditional way for a fundamentalist to break of these exchanges is to resort to sanctimonious condescension and depart using "I'll pray for you" as a the departing punch whilst loudly proclaiming victory.

I have ALREADY stated in my last 3 posts in 3 different ways that the 3 propositional alternatives for the origin of the universe are NOT provable by empirical methods of science...this removes any claim on YOUR part for the superiority of atheism over theism. IKTHUZE

So when will you be answering the question and explaining HOW your god made everything from nothing?

Do you seriously think your constant assertions that it did so are somehow going to make it all come true?

BTW, there are a few other people now also calling themselves 'anonymous'. They are making you look even more evasive and infantile. I DID warn you that that could happen when you, understandably, decided to remain anonymous.

I have no evidence for anything I've stated in this comment section. However, since I've included my name on subsequent posts, I am no longer anonymous, I am IKTHUZE. No one can post as me now. Can they? Hey! Who wrote this? Who's putting words in my mouth!? Stop it! ;)

Anonymous's false dilemna that the origin of the universe MUST be a, b, or c is false, there could be many other possibilities, even before we get into arguing the merits of his comments in the first place. For example, since nobody actually knows whether time itself 'existed' before the creation of the universe, the word 'eternal' really has no meaning and neither does the idea of an eternal universe.

In any case, claiming knowledge of an unknowable god, assigning it various qualities and crediting it with the creation of the universe simply pushes the question back one level. Where did he/she/it come from? If you're claiming it is 'eternal' what did he make the universe out of? Nothing? Or was there something there to start with? No, that can't be it can it, or the universe could have formed from the something that was there to start with, no gods needed.

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations. Hopefully, religious and other offensive advertising content has now been blocked from this site. Please let me know if you see any.